Of paramount importance is that the Islamic faith terminate its use of ALL violent activities and in particular its use of homicide to advance its hold on humanity.

Whether Islamic leaders condemn jihad or not, whether or not they split hairs on this Islamic tenet or that is of little concern. What really matters is that it is urgent Muslims understand that their use and export of religious violence is OUT OF BOUNDS as far as the remainder of humanity is concerned. PERIOD.

Islam must PUT A PERMANENT END to its usage and export of religious violence, warfare or 'jihad'--OR ELSE.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 7, 2005 5:13 PM

(sniff sniff makes face)

(sniff sniff)

Yep

(SNIFF)

TAQIYYAH!

Posted by: Mussolini at December 7, 2005 5:18 PM

Another casualty of the latest global jihad: I will likely never get to hear Robert's (sure to be) dulcet tones on the flugelhorn. Living like it's the day before D-Day all the time is certainly exciting, but I miss real boredom.

I used to study esoteric religions from a thousand years ago with some interest. I'd love to get back to my dead religions, military history, maybe even a novel.

Posted by: Beagle at December 7, 2005 5:19 PM

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, speaking at the opening session, also called for moderation. "Islamic unity can't be achieved by the spilling of blood, as deviant people claim by their dark ideas," he said

Ths is a bit like Ted Bundy leading a presentation on womens' rights at a NOW conference.

Posted by: Charles Martel at December 7, 2005 5:21 PM

pythagoras,
You'll have more luck trisecting angles with a compass and a ruler than you will getting muslims to renounce violence.

I think annihilation of "holy" sites is the way to go.

Posted by: American at December 7, 2005 5:23 PM

Why is it that it is only Islam among all the worlds largest religious communities is it heard even from its leaders that the key to more peace is less Islam? "Moderate" Islam means less devotion to the immutable canon of Islam. No other religion on Earth has this problem. No Islam: know peace.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at December 7, 2005 5:47 PM

Darn! And I always thought that Mr. Spencer bore a faint resemblence to Chuck Mangione, too. Ah, what might have been.

Posted by: libbysmom at December 7, 2005 6:02 PM

..fun stuff..

Revelation 9:11, King James version

" And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon (meaning "The Destroyer")"

http://www.revelation13.net/war.html

Posted by: otterfisher at December 7, 2005 6:06 PM

Jihad or fluegelhorns? Which is harder to live with?

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at December 7, 2005 6:08 PM

Miss Moneypenny writes:
"Jihad or fluegelhorns? Which is harder to live with?"

I'm more partial to reed instruments myself, but
I don't recall any news items about mass murdering
brass sections on a rampage. Well, there's always that apocryphal story of the guy sitting in front of the trombone player who gets his head bashed in by
the slide, but it's always an accident.

Posted by: American at December 7, 2005 6:29 PM

The wording seems to imply that his anti-Jihad and learning to play the flugelhorn are inextricably linked. He says: "I can retire from this work and pursuing my lifelong dream of learning to play the fluegelhorn." Is the flugelhorn an instrument of anti-Jihad? Is there something about the fact that the Jihad is now over (according to these lovely Muslim leaders in Mekkah -- phew!) which makes the flugelhorn now unnecessary? Why stop learning to play just because the Jihad is over?

I am resuming my world travels because I no longer fear the rage of the seracen. I will even go to Muslim countries and reasonably expect the same respect and tolerance from them that they receive from us! This is great news!

Posted by: jsla at December 7, 2005 6:30 PM

OK, OK. I will moderate.

Now, will you get on the boat, please? It's a long ride to Bangladesh.

Posted by: Havoc at December 7, 2005 6:43 PM

Asalamu aleykum wa rahmatulahi:

There are few if any Muslims, who have been able to articulate a true vision of what "moderate Islam" is. I think Free-Minds (www.free-minds.org) has been successful.

Robert has asked time, and time again for Muslims to be able to walk the talk. On this particular wesbite, comprehensive answers (for the most part) to Islamism are given, that are plausible and cogent.

Here are some notable links:

http://www.free-minds.org/articles/politics/political-islam.htm

http://www.free-minds.org/articles/hadith/hadithmyth.htm

And importantly this article gives a view on how the Qur'an should be studied:

How to study the quran

“Do they not ponder the Quran?. Or do they have locks on their hearts?” (47:24)

The opponents of Islam will normally quote one or two verses out of context such as “and kill them wherever you find them” (2:191) to prove their conviction that Islam is a religion of hate and terror, and that its followers are akin to satanic worshippers for no true GOD would have sanctioned such teachings…

The problem is that the ignorant amongst the Muslims, as well as their self-appointed leaders, will fall into these sort of traps and even agree that they are ‘commanded’ to kill all Jews and Christians or that they are ‘commanded’ to beat women who are disobedient, or that they are ‘commanded’ to amputate the hands of thieves, etc..

All these problems come from the inability of Muslims and their self-appointed leaders to study the Quran as it was intended to be studied, and thus they risk turning the book of guidance and light into a book of horror and crime!.

This article, unless GOD wills otherwise, will seek to point out what may be already obvious to some in studying the book of GOD and how to avoid making incorrect conclusions and then blaming them on GOD.

Stating the Obvious

To the average reader of the Quran, the first glaring observation that he/she will make is that the ‘subject matters’ are scattered about in the book with no logical reference. For example, the history of the Children of Israel is heavily recorded in Chapter 2, but then different snap-shots from the same story are found in Chapter 7, Chapter 20, and elsewhere in the Book.

In fact, the only single subject that has not been scattered throughout the Book is that of Joseph in Chapter 12 where his story is given sequentially and in one take…

The structure of the Book is one of the main reasons that people turn away from studying the Quran for themselves and they opt to have others ‘explain it’ to them, while they simply become content with ‘reciting’ the book to gain favor with GOD and extra credit…This lazy approach is what opened the door to various leaderships to exploit the masses through the myriad of self-appointed scholars who emerged over the past 14 centuries to be GOD’s ‘spokesmen’ and to tell the people what GOD wants them to know or do (where ‘god’ in most cases is the leader and his ideology).

In fact, the situation has become so comical that various dictatorship regimes who have glaring human rights abuse records, continue to print and distribute copies of the Quran to their people and even to the world!

Origins of the current Quran order

In the game of disinformation and confusion, Muslims have been taught by their self-appointed scholars that the prophet died without having completed the compilation of the Quran…

The story then goes that a ‘committee’ was organized by Abu Bakr (the 1st leader after the prophet) to gather the Quran into one book…The story then places doubt in the authenticity of the Quran claiming that the scribes had debates as to what belonged where, and after having some doubt over the sequence of certain chapters (is chapter 9 a continuation of chapter 8, or is it a separate chapter?, are the last 2 verses of chapter 9 authentic or not?, etc..).

The end result of this disinformation is two fold:

1) It creates ‘doubt’ in the authenticity and structure of the Quran.

2) It gives ‘special authority’ to the scribes and people of that age (if they complied the Quran and you accept it wholeheartedly, then why would you reject the other writings of Hadith and tradition that they made?).

Of course, all these lies are denied and eradicated by the Quran itself, where it states that the order of the verses/chapters were given to the prophet under ‘divine instructions’ from GOD:

“And if We place a verse in place of another verse, and GOD is more aware of what He is revealing, they say: 'you are making this up!'. Alas, most of them do not know. Say: 'the holy spirit has sent it down from your Lord with truth, so that those who have faith will be strengthened, and as a guidance and good news for the Submitters'." (16-101-102)

Why this ‘Jigsaw’ Puzzle?.

While most Muslims live and die without ever confronting the above question, the students of GOD Alone know not to leave a stone unturned in their pursuit for knowledge and in their use of the faculties of sight, hearing, mind, and heart that GOD Has bestowed them…

The answer comes directly from GOD’s Book regarding the nature of the Quran, and that it has been ‘designed’ the way it has to ‘identify peoples inner intentions’, and to reveal those who do not believe in the hereafter from those who do believe:

“He is the One who sent down to you the book, from which there are firm verses; they are the mother of the book; and others which are of a similarity. As for those who have disease in their hearts, they will follow what is of a similarity from it seeking to make an ordeal, and seeking to derive its interpretation. But none know its interpretation except GOD and those who are well founded in knowledge. They say: 'we have faith in it, all is from our Lord'. And none will remember except the people of understanding.” (3:7)

The ‘firm’ verses are the ones where the message needs NO extra work and where the verse carries no ambiguity or loss of information on its own (e.g. GOD is One, honor your parents, do not commit adultery, do not lie, do not steal, do not be a tyrant, do not oppress, etc..)…While the ‘similarity’ verses are mixed into the Book like a jigsaw puzzle, and where people who follow them without taking them into proper context risk committing crimes under the guise that ‘GOD Had ordered this’ (this is where the majority are today in fulfillment of the prophecy that there is a ‘disease’ in their hearts).

Do all people need to Study the Quran?

Most people will not have the time or effort to study the Quran as it deserves to be studied…Therefore, it is important to mention from the outset of this article that simply sticking to the ‘firm’ verses as mentioned in 3:7 is ENOUGH for the people to be able to walk the Straight Path.

"Those who have faith, and those who are Jewish, and the Converts, and the Nazarenes, whosoever has faith in GOD and the last day and does good works, then they will have nothing to fear nor will they grieve." (5:69)

If these people believe in GOD Alone and lead a good and righteous life, then they will have nothing to fear nor will they grieve.

The Phases of Quran Study

Now that we have given a background, it is time to move into the subject of ‘how to study the Quran’:

1.Language
The first point of contention in the study of the Quran must be 'language'...Many of the 1 billion people who state to be Muslims have been informed that the Quran can only be recited or read in 'Arabic' and that any translation will not give the proper meaning...The flip-side is that these same self-appointed scholars will then tell Arabic speakers that the Quran is 'too complex' for them to understand and that they should leave its understanding to the experts!.

Of course, the Quran itself says that language is NOT a barrier to its understanding as its is GOD who is making it understood to people who open their hearts (and not the language).

"If we made it a non-Arabic Quran they would have said, 'If only its verses were made clear!. Can it be Arabic and non-Arabic?'. Say, "For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, they will be deaf and blind to it, as if they are being addressed from faraway." (41:44)

GOD's Book is unlike any other book on earth as it is subject to His system and His laws which state that only HE can make it understood if HE desires to do so (not the language or qualifications or expertise of the reader).

"This is an honorable Quran. In a protected book. None can grasp it except the sincere. A revelation from the Lord of the universe." (56:77-80)

2.Arranging the Quran in Order
This is the core element which has been lacking from Muslims for many centuries…The ability to ‘arrange’ the Quranic verses by order of subject/topic to seek its meaning. The Quran itself speaks to us about making such an arrangement under the command of ‘Ratil’.

“Meditate during the night, except rarely. Half of it, or a little less. Or a little more. And arrange (Ratil) the Quran in its arrangement (Tarteel).” (73:2-4)

‘Ratil’ is an Arabic word which means: ‘to arrange things of similarity together’.

For example: a series of tanks lined together is called ‘Ratil Dababat’ (an arrangement of tanks)….We do not say ‘Ratil’ in Arabic if the things together are not similar (i.e. if the series included cars and planes and tanks, the word ‘Ratil’ cannot be used).

Therefore, if you wanted to know what GOD Has said about the subject of ‘divorce’, you would begin by taking all the verses which speak about this subject and are scattered throughout the Book and ‘arrange them together’ (Tarteel).

3.Derive a meaning from the verses
Now that you have placed all the verses that deal with a topic side-by-side, it is time to move on to the next step which is ‘to derive a meaning’.

“Your Lord knows that you meditate during two-thirds of the night, or half of it, or one-third of it, and so do some of those who believed with you. GOD has designed the night and the day, and He knows that you cannot always do this. He has pardoned you. So, understand (Iqr’a) what you can of the Quran. He knows that some of you may be ill, others may be traveling in pursuit of GOD's provisions, and others may be striving in the cause of GOD. So, understand (Iqr’a) what you can of it, and establish the Bond, and bring forth the Purification), and lend GOD a loan of righteousness. Whatever good you send ahead on behalf of your souls, you will find it at GOD far better and generously rewarded. And implore GOD for forgiveness. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.” (73:20)

The word ‘Iqra’ means: ‘to relate/understand a meaning’. Unfortunately, as with the word ‘Ratil’, this word has been lost in its usage to simply mean ‘recite’. ‘Iqra’ is derived from ‘qarana’ which is to ‘put things together’.

For example: When a person is reading the news from a piece of paper or teleprompter, that person is ‘Yatlu’ the news (not qar’a or iqr’a)…However, when a teacher is relating to his students the concepts of relativity in physics, he is ‘Yaqra’ the lesson (relating its meaning) to them.

4. Be Aware of Pitfalls
The phase of deriving a meaning from the Quran’s study is the most difficult since there are many factors that can alter the true meaning of the text, some of which are:

Not having all the verses on the subject (the missing of one verse can give a different conclusion to the reader).

Using a mistranslated or misused word in the verses (the example of how Ratil/Utlu/Iqra have been misused and misunderstood is a good example of this and gives the wrong meaning).

Not having sufficient awareness of the subject being studied (if a man who has never seen a river or sea, nor studied them, tries to piece together the verses which speak of the water cycle and the mixing of the salt and fresh water, then he may not get an accurate understanding).

It is also during this ‘understanding’ phase that Satan will exert the MAXIMUM effort to interfere with the derived meaning:

“So when you understand (qara’at) the Quran, you shall seek refuge with GOD from Satan the outcast. He has no authority over those who have faith, and who put their trust in their Lord. His authority is over those who follow him, and set him up as a partner. “ (16:98-100)

This is where people need to have ‘maximum faith’ in GOD Alone and not be scared or confused if what they are reading or understanding does not conform to what others have said or taught for years or centuries…This is why we need to seek GOD’s help in helping us understanding the correct meaning…for without Him we would be truly lost.

5. Relate the meaning to ‘examples’ in the Quran
When you are deriving a meaning, you should be fully aware of the ‘stories’ given in the Quran which most times give a live account of the usage of a law or how to act in a specific situation…

“We relate to you the best stories through what We have inspired to you this Quran; and before it you were of those who were unaware.” (12:3)

The stories of the Quran are NOT meant to be there for entrainment, but have been selected by the Almighty to drive home many lessons for those who pay attention…

“And We have cited for mankind in this Quran of every example, but most of mankind refuse to be anything but a rejecter!.” (17:89)

Pay Attention to other’s explanation / Follow the ‘Best’ meaning.

Now that you have derived a meaning from the Quran on a subject, you need to listen and pay attention to what others may have similarly derived and analyze any mistakes you may have done…

“And when the Quran is being related, then listen to it and pay attention, that you may receive mercy.” (7:204)

The benefits of comparing understandings is very clear to people who have followed this approach before… you may have missed a verse out, or misunderstood a word, or not noticed the live example given in the Quran, etc..

Once the various understandings/interpretations are being related, the people of GOD Alone will follow the BEST meaning derived and not let their ego stand in the way of truth:

“Those who listen to what is said, and they follow the best of it. These are the ones whom GOD has guided; these are the ones who possess intelligence." (39:18)

Be patient, and remember who the ‘true’ teacher is.

Before you walk away thinking that you can change the world with this new found knowledge of the Quran, you must REMEMBER who is in charge and who it is that is doing the teachings…

“Then High above all is GOD, the King, the True. And do not be hasty with the Quran before its inspiration is completed to you, and say: 'my Lord, increase me in knowledge'.” (20:114)

We are here on this planet to serve GOD Alone and walk in His path…not to serve our own agendas and our own egos:

“You Alone we serve, You Alone we seek” (1:5)

Conclusion

You now should have the necessary tools to educate yourself on the Quran’s system and method for deriving meanings…Try to make this a habit of seeking the answers for yourself through the guidance of GOD Alone…Do not be quick to ask ‘others’ what GOD says regarding this or that matter, but try to establish the Bond with GOD directly yourself…It is only through this self-awareness that people can have a defense mechanism against the ignorance and lies and hate that are continually being spewed out by falsely attributing them to GOD’s name (be He Glorified!).

Also, do not be surprised if others cannot understand what you are explaining to them using the Quran…it is a book unlike any other on this planet…and it is a book where not all people who can read are allowed access to its information:

“And when explain the Quran, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter an invisible barrier. And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the Quran Alone, they run away giving their backs in aversion.” (17:45-46)

Finally, remember that your enemies wish to keep you as FAR AWAY as possible from the power of knowledge and liberation contained within the Quran…Will you let them win!.

“And those who rejected said: ‘Do not listen to this Quran and make noise in it, that you may win.” (41:26)

AN EXAMPLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE QURAN

Now that you have read all the above steps, we will take an actual example of how this is put into use…We will deal with the issue of ‘theft’ in the Quran.

The first and most obvious verse that deals with this subject is5:38...below are some literal translations:

YUSUFALI: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
PICKTHAL: As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

The above seems as clear as day...just 'cut off their hands' and the matter is done!.

In-fact, this is the law carried out by the Sunni and Shia in their respective countries under the guise that 'GOD told them to do so!'.

Let us put the study of the Quran in practice and bring together the verses which use the word 'theft', 'cut', and 'hand':

Theft: 12:70, 12:73, 12:77, 12:81, 60:12, 5:38.

Cut: 7:72, 69:46, 29:29, 8:7, 22:15, 13:25, 5:38, 12:31, 12:50, 7:160, 7:1245:33, 2:166...

Hand: 3:73, 5:64, 17:29, 27:12, 2:237, 24:40, 5:28, 2:97, 38:45, 7:124, 43:30, 12:31, 60:112...

The first observation when looking at these verses is that the word (qat'a) which is translated as 'cut' can also mean 'stop' (29:29, 13:25). The second observation is that (yad) which is translated as 'hand' can also mean 'resource' (38:45). The third observation is that the words 'cut & hand' also occur together elsewhere in the Quran to give the meaning of 'marking the hand' (12:31).

If we were to simply stop here with gathering the verses 'Tartil' and then attempting to derive the best meaning 'Iqra', then we would conclude that 'marking the hand of the thief' is the proper context for 5:38 and it still retains the meaning of the words used.

However, if we complete the process and move on to step # 4 above, then we find a 'live example' of theft being given in Chapter 12...The story of Joseph (12:70-79).

12:74, "They said: 'what shall be his punishment if you are not truthful??"'

12:75, "They said: 'the punishment is that whomever it is found in his bags, then he shall remain as punishment. It is such that we punish the wicked'."'

Here we are given new light on the matter...Joseph's brothers state that 'detention' of the person is the punishment...not the 'marking of the hand'.

Now we can see which words to use in the translation/ understanding of the verse on theft:

"The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut from their resources as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Almighty, Wise." (5:38)

As such, you are detaining the thief from his/her job of theft, and making them remain in prison or as a worker until the person 'repents and reforms':

"Whosoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes reparations, then GOD will accept his repentance. GOD is Forgiving, Merciful." (5:39)

This is how a proper meaning is derived, and how the law of GOD shines through in its pure form...Had we not gone through the required steps of study as prescribed by GOD, then we would have committed an irreversible crime of amputating peoples hands as the Sunnis and Shia have done due to their blatant disregard for the structure of the Book of GOD pointed out in 3:7.

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 6:47 PM

Another article on Muhammad:

Just a human being:

"Say (O Muhammad), ‘I am no more than a human being like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is ONE GOD. Therefore, you shall observe Him, and ask His forgiveness, and woe to those who associate (with God)’" (41:6)

Muhammad cannot guide anyone

"You (Muhammad) cannot guide even the ones you love. GOD is the one who guides whomever He wills, for He knows best those who deserve the guidance." (28:56)

Muhammad does not know the future

"Say (O Muhammad), 'I do not bring anything new that is different from any other messenger. I have no idea what may happen to me, or to you. I simply follow what is revealed to me. I am no more than a manifest warner.'" (46:9)

"Say (O Muhammad), 'I possess no power to benefit or harm even myself, except in accordance with GOD's will. (Nor do I know the future), had I known the future (unseen), I would have increased my wealth, and no harm would have afflicted me. I am no more than a warner, as well as bearer of good news for those who believe.'" (7:188)

Yet, hundreds of "Hadiths" narrate future events that have nothing to do with the Quran, and represent personal predictions.

Muhammad will not call you to account

"Your ONLY mission (O Muhammad) is to deliver (the Quran), while it is We who will call them to account." (13:40)

Muhammad cannot benefit you or harm you

"Say (O Muhammad), 'I possess no power to harm myself, or benefit myself.'" (10:49)

“Say (O Muhammad), 'I possess no power to harm you, or benefit you through guiding you.'” (72:21)

Thus, the prophet will not put you in Paradise, nor can he take you out of hell, nor will he call you to account before him, nor can he benefit you, nor can he harm you. HIS SOLE MISSION WAS DELIVERING QURAN, & NOTHING BUT QURAN. To love him and honour him is to follow the Quran alone, and reject the fabrications attributed to him.

DO WE HATE MUHAMMAD?

Of-course not. Muhammad was the messenger of GOD and the final Prophet. His life, his work, his struggle, his example have all been recorded and captured throughout the Quran till the end of time.

But when you tell the “Muslims” what GOD says about Muhammad in the Quran, they accuse you of hating Muhammad.

Similarly, when you tell the Christians that Jesus is a human being and a messenger of GOD, they accuse you of hating Jesus.

The true love of Jesus is to recognize him as a human and a messenger of GOD. The Christians love Jesus so much, yet he disowns them on the Day of Judgment (Quran 5:116).

The true love of Muhammad is to recognize him as a human and to follow his teachings, i.e. UPHOLD QURAN AND NOTHING BUT QURAN. Those who follow other teachings are named as Muhammad's enemies, and Muhammad disowns them on the Day of Judgment as we see below:

"(On the day of judgment) the messenger will say, 'My Lord; my people have deserted THIS QURAN.' We thus set up against every prophet enemies from among the guilty. Your LORD SUFFICES AS A GUIDE AND SUPPORTER." (25:30-31)

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 6:53 PM

A cogent critique on hadith

http://www.free-minds.org/books/kassim8.htm

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 6:55 PM

Toilet paper anyone? I think some dog doo just got on this thread...

Posted by: jsla at December 7, 2005 7:02 PM

I smell it too.

Posted by: butterfly at December 7, 2005 7:04 PM

I'm taking it you have not read any of it. Which does. This should be a place for debate and discussion. Why don't you take a crack at reading it.

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 7:08 PM

Haidon,

I'm not the guy you need to convince. Nobody at Jihad Watch / Dhimmi Watch, I'm aware of anyway, is out killing / beheading / raping / stealing for Allah.

Posted by: Beagle at December 7, 2005 7:20 PM

BTW -- I read enough of it to divine that you're a Muslim troglodyte -- and that you're hopelessly lost in the miasma of Muhammad ---

But to you that's just an attempt by Satan to take you away from your baby diaper of Islam -- At best you are a harmless fruitcake -- at worst you are an enemy who should be destroyed. Nuf said.

Posted by: jsla at December 7, 2005 7:23 PM

I read it. I think you have good intentions. If the Koran was the only source of authority for Islamic belief it would be much easier to pacify the believers.
It can happen, but it will only happen through pychological deception. I think this is the basic idea of the Pragmatists. And why we are fighting this war the way we are.
It's a race against time though.
The alternatives are very ugly. Hell on earth actually.

Posted by: kentim at December 7, 2005 7:30 PM

Fair point Beagle.

My goal is not to try and "convince" you that Islam is a religion of peace. I am just trying to highlight legitimate efforts at questioning traditional Muslim texts. This is significant. I have no illusions that Islam will reform. I know the uphill battle we face.

JLSA- A fruitcake? Piss off. Its comments like yours that put Robert in a negative limelight. I am Muslim who believes that Islam can reform. I believe in complete separation of Islam from poltics, absolute equality and human rights, and that the only way forward is the defeat of Jihadists.

I don't claim that Islam is "misunderstood" or that ayah are taken out of context. There are major problems with Islam.

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 7:44 PM

I agree with poster Mussolini. The practice of "TAQIYYAH" must be considered.

Posted by: Jim at December 7, 2005 7:51 PM

I also read the text in its entirety, including the link on the hadith. The first, an attempt at hermeneutics, a methodology of interpretation to somehow purge the Qur'an of obvious moral sins, the latter a critical rescinding of any 'authority' the hadith might have. An argument sola scriptura.

And if we carefully follow these steps and attend carefully to the meaning of the classical Arabic shall we will find that women deserve equal treatment, respect, not even a light beating, that infidels should not be opposed, oppressed, despised, suspected, but embraced as brothers and sisters in the search for God's wisdom, and that jihad is nothing more than a spiritual journey for truth, not a violent battle-quest for Islamic domination? Shall the principles of interpretation, the nuances and logic of the words simply fall into place miraculously on all occasions, fixing the meaning, repairing the context, leaving a masterpiece, moral essence, divine truth? And against what standards shall we judge the final message a 'masterpiece' that is morally complete? Shall the standards emerge from the text or do we already know what they are? And if we know what they are, then what do we need the text for?

But we do not need all this, do we? Aren't we simply rationalizing conclusions ad hoc to save a religious identity, a sense of purpose, meaning, moral being, that one cannot give up?

But, having said that, I hope that the hermeneutics works and convinces legions of Muslims to embrace non-believers in genuine friendship, as moral equals, to respect their rights as human beings, their points of view, their ways of life, their freedom of conscience, to abandon efforts to conquer the world for Allah, to impose His laws as the Prophet did, as Muslim armies did, as Muslim leaders did, in centuries of oppression, to subjugate, oppress or kill those who would stand in their way

Would that the Qur'an told them so in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: JTF at December 7, 2005 8:00 PM

JTF -- perhaps I am harsh with the Muslim thrall above -- but I don't take what he, or any Muslim says seriously. If he/she is truly serious about reforming Islam -- JW is NOT the place to be proselytizing!

The heuristics of hermeneutics regarding Islam don't interest me in the slightest. I am not the problem with Islam. Although if Islam proves, as I believe, that it is not redeemable, than the Muslims will force our hand in this thing - and as someone says above -- it will be hell on earth. Since the so-called "reformers" seem to spend all their time among the infidels where they don't risk decapitation, I don't hold out much hope that they will be effective. Nor am I inclined to feel much sympathy for them. They are, after all, continuing to adhere to a system of such depravity and ugliness that I cannot account for it or them.

Posted by: jsla at December 7, 2005 8:16 PM

I hope the suggested interpertation of the last sentence of my post is a little more transparent that the creative sanitizing of the amputation text.

Posted by: JTF at December 7, 2005 8:27 PM

For a muslim such as Haidon to admit that there are major problems in Islam is very heartening, but I must agree with jsla that this is not the proper forum for dawa. And Haidon has yet to fully expound upon what those problems are, and how future Muslims are to look on Muhammed without committing major misogyny, planetary discord, or destructive strife among the human race.

Posted by: kafira at December 7, 2005 9:09 PM

Really JTF, my post was more of an apostrophe, and you were handy -- I try to avoid addressing the dissembling Muslim troglodytes who come here to preach their sedition.

Posted by: jsla at December 7, 2005 9:23 PM

jsla writes:
"JTF -- perhaps I am harsh with the Muslim thrall above -- but I don't take what he, or any Muslim says seriously. If he/she is truly serious about reforming Islam -- JW is NOT the place to be proselytizing!"

Indeed. I feel the same way about the fellow infidels who tell me that islam is a religion of
peace and that it's just a few bad apples.

Go preach on the muslim boards.

Posted by: American at December 7, 2005 9:25 PM

I am not prostelysing. This should be a safe place for debate and dialogue. Just because I am Muslim, does not mean I should be exlcuded from this debate. It would probably surprise you that I actually support the writings of Robert and Hugh Fitzgerald. I diverge with Hugh in the sense, that I believe that there is a decent reformist base out there.

As far as Islam's problems go they are enumerable and include but are obviously not limited to the subjugation of women and non-Muslim minorities, the propogation of terrorism, rape, misogny and so on. There are so many messages of inconsistency coming out of the Qur'an and Hadith as well. But the bottom line, Islam as is, is incompatible with modern Judeo-Christian civilisation.

To give you an example of what moderate Muslims can do, we have worked very hard in New Zealand and have appeared before Parliament and Committees on several ocassions to start looking at counter-terrorism in the proper context; and have further argued for the strengthening of counter-terror legislation.

Muhammad, in my view, is merely a messenger, nothing more nothing less; a conduit, and I believe a proper hermenuetical approach (non-literalist and contextual) to the Qur'an (and not the mythical hadith and sirah). I do not follow his teachings, nor will I allow my children to. Nothing in the Qur'an prevents however, Muslims from following the core moral teachings of Jesus (which are not contested in the Qur'an).

And again as far as prostelysing, perhaps you should be trying to convince the masses (who are to ignorant to view this site) out there about the realities of ISlam. You are essenytially preaching to the converted.

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 9:43 PM

I wonder, does Haidon exchange his thoughts and ours with his Muslim friends? and if he does, he really may need our help or the use of the "I can lie in the name of Allah" clause? Truth and understanding happen much better with freedom from a perceived perfection.

Posted by: SirSeth at December 7, 2005 9:51 PM

SirSeth:

I do, and have, to varying degrees of reception ranging from violent to the subtly dismissive. My wife and I both have been threatened, and I have been attacked. I recently presented a Khutbha during Ramdhan arguing some of these themes and was not well received. In fact, I could not finish the khutbah.

My views, represent those of a minority. Expressing those views can lead to declarations of takfir and fatwa, and I have been subjected to both.

Thomas Haidon

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 9:57 PM

Haidon might have good intentions, but do you know why he's here instead of preaching his motion to muslims?

He values his head.

*coughsneezesnickercough*

Islam has been violently pushing its religion via the sword for almost all of its 1400 years. In contrast, the relatively short Inquisition is brought up over and over again without any factual relevance - the Inquisition was to root out heresy amongst church believers, not unbelievers. Islam confronts the unbeliever with the sword. Convert, serve as a scorned dhimmi-slave, or die.

We cannot ever allow, out of politically correct "respect," a system into our democracy whose sole purpose is to dismantle democracy. Our American secular democracy is blasphemy to Allah and hated worse than even Judaism.

Disenfranchising Islam from the democratic political system is not only sensible, but a necessity. We did not embrace naziism, communism, the British, the Barbary muslims or any other enemy into our political system out of politically correct inclusion. Islam declared war on us (or never ceased the struggle that began in 640AD), not us on them. Yet we still claim we're fighting a tactic (terror) and not a religion because it's not politically correct to fight religion.

Silly. We're going to lose this war - especially if the muslims realize they could change America without violence by relying on the idiot left and the uneducated portion of the right to be politically correct. Sharia in America is closer than you all fear.

Where are our heroes?

"Inactivity is death." - Benito Mussolini

Posted by: Mussolini at December 7, 2005 10:04 PM

Mussolini:

Similarly, why arent you "out there" preaching your message? Don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is, I have stuck my neck on the line in Muslim communities in the Arab world and the Western world. So please spare me.

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 10:11 PM

(sniff sniff)

Wasn't CAIR sniffing over Robert's internet fruit recently? Perhaps they smelt something rotten to their political aims here in America... and realized that internet fruit was very visible to many like-minded folk...

...and in realizing the typical civil action might produce an avalnche of nasty fruit from the American tree decided on another tack...

(sniff sniff)

Do I detect a possible attempt by certain detestable defender of murder and purveyor of anti-semitism of planting a seed of change to alter the genetics of this fruit?

coughhackCAIRcoughtaqiyyahsnort

Posted by: Mussolini at December 7, 2005 10:11 PM

Pray tell me the message I need to preach to my fellow murderers?

Posted by: Mussolini at December 7, 2005 10:13 PM

My recollection, fwiw, is that Haidon has posted before (under a slightly different name, perhaps, with a T?), and seemed a sincere person. He is, however, effectively an apostate from islam, as he completely discounts the hadith and sira, believes in a separation of church and state, etc.

Haidon,

The length of your longer posts is excessive to the point of spam, which suggests, possibly wrongly, that you are behaving in bad faith.

I can't help wondering: have you posted identical tracts on muslim websites? Have you tried to spread this reinterpretation within your ummah? If yes, what reaction did you receive from your fellow believers? What is the evidence for your belief that a large reformist base exists in the ummah?

My memory is that you are a convert to islam who has developed your own interpretation of the ideology. Based upon your own experience with other muslims, why do so many converts become fanatical, whereas you, apparently, have not? And finally, how do you, personally, define and distinguish "moderate" muslims from immoderate?

Thanks for your help with at least a few of my questions.

Posted by: del at December 7, 2005 10:16 PM

"Nothing in the Qur'an prevents however, Muslims from following the core moral teachings of Jesus (which are not contested in the Qur'an)."

As I understand it, Muhammad abrogated the teachings of all prophets who came befor him.

Posted by: dms at December 7, 2005 10:20 PM

Dear Mussolini:

You wrote so eloquently:

detect a possible attempt by certain detestable defender of murder and purveyor of anti-semitism of planting a seed of change to alter the genetics of this fruit?

coughhackCAIRcoughtaqiyyahsnort

Just to let you know, I was arguably the first Muslim to speak publicly on NZ and Australian radio against his detractors. I have worked with members in the Free Muslim Coalition and have liased with Anti-Cair to see if a counter offensive could be organised. You share one common bond with Islamic terrorists. You both have no tolerance for reform within Islam.

Get f*#$ed

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 10:22 PM

Haidon,

While I was typing my comment, I see that you have answered some of my questions, in replies to others: you have been dismissed and threatened, been the recipient of takfir and fatwa etc.

So, then again: what is the basis for your belief that a large reformist base exists?

Posted by: del at December 7, 2005 10:22 PM

"You share one common bond with Islamic terrorists. You both have no tolerance for reform within Islam."

Can't be done.

Posted by: dms at December 7, 2005 10:36 PM

Re Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu:

1.

"Any Muslim who pretends that the institution of the dhimmi did not exist, or as Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish historian who is currently the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, would have us believe, was not bad but in fact almost a privilege kindly offered to a select group of non-Muslims -- the Ahl al-kitab -- as "protected peoples" (a highly misleading phrase, as if Al Capone were to refer to the owners of restaurants and liquor stores his men shook down as "protected people"), is not a true "moderate" but one more so-called "moderate" engaged in continued deception."
-- a previous posting

2.

"Inter-civilizations dialogue, tolerance and peace were mentioned under the roof of Stevens… Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu talked about how people of different religions, lived freely under Islamic rule. He presented proofs from the Koran and the Sunnah. He also gave examples from the Ottomans… All the speeches at one point concentrated on the fact that cultural richness contributes to the compromise of civilizations."
-- a report in the Turkish newspaper "Zaman" about a speech by Ihsanoglu at Stevens Institute in New Jersey

3.

"Looking to history of Islam, an Islamic state, from this perspective may be considered as a confederation of several socio-cultural groups under the patronage of the political center where power is concentrated. The privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was only given to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed. Therefore these communities have been called as ahl al-kitab. This demonstration and the rights of these communities have been specified by Qur'an.

In fact the Qur'an refers in several places very positively to some of the ahl al-kitab. : "Those to whom we have given the Book rejoice at what has been revealed unto you" 813:36). Also, "and there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, in the revelation to you and in reeation to them, bowing in humility to God: they will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with Lord, and God is swift in account" (3:199). It also calls some of them the believers (al-mu'minun) and the righteous (al-salihun)."
-- from a speech delivered at Stevens Institute in 2004 by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Note #3 especially -- how he describes, for an American audience, the treatment of non-Muslims in the Qur'an. Ask yourself if he has truthfully conveyed the essence either of the attitudes inculcated by the Qur'an, or by the other canonical texts (Hadith, Sira). This is a Turksih "secularist," a Turkish "historian of science," the current Secretary-General of the O.I.C. The very best that the world of Islam could come up with. Not nearly what Infidels have a right to expect, by way of truth-telling.

Posted by: Hugh at December 7, 2005 10:37 PM

DMS:

I have showed you how it can be done. Instead of reading it and investigating it you choose not too.

Del:

you wrote

So, then again: what is the basis for your belief that a large reformist base exists?

Well its certainly not large in the grand scheme of things. But it does exist and is gathering some steam (although not significant enpough to make a real differece). The real reason why Islam faces significant difficulties in reforming is because of takfir.

Regarding converts you may be interested in this where i made a couple of remarks:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14358

A non exhaustive list of what constitutes a moderate Muslim A moderate Muslim takes a non-literal, contextualist view of the Qur'an, believes in the separation of Islam and the state and does not desire the caliphate of implementation of Shariah (including rejecting the dhimma and apostacy laws), believes in absolute equality of men and women in all contexts...

All of the prophets going back to Adam are relevant in Islam. The core moral teachings (ie his courage and methods of non-violence) of Jesus in Islam are not contested. If they were wrong, Allah would have said that Jesus did not act in such a way. I admit that much of the Sunnah, by definition contravenes the teachings of Jesus, but as stated above, I do not find Sunnah valid...

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 10:45 PM

Well, all above is intelligent enough, good show everybody, but there is another problem we have got to face. As far as I can discern, the Koran is such and ancient anachronism that its syntax can be argued one way or the other. The Catholics obviously prefer to interpret the Koran in the best possible light. evidently, it is an effort to make the Koran into a civilized reading in spite of the many Moslems who desire to read it in a bloody light. Why are they doing this? I think they are trying to save the lives of a lot of Catholics trapped behind the political-Allah wall. For example, the word they use for "Jesus" is not at all etymologically justified. We are not compelled to believe on the basis of what the Koran says, that it is talking about Jesus at all! And, Miriam does not signify Mary. Now, even the King James Bible has errors in it, yet we call it a Holy Bible (even if you are Catholic), so, why not say that the Koran, which has many errors, still is an Holy Book because it contains a few truisms? A Christian might say, "Jesus is so innocent and pure that one drop of Jesus can purify a whole cesspool. Now, isn't this what the Pope was trying to do when he kissed the Koran and (at another time) called it a "Holy Koran"? Maybe that went by you a little fast, but, with typical Catholic duplicity, isn't the Pope trying to rewrite the Koran by taking advantage of the totally generic nature of the Koran in order to make Allan into Jesus? And isn't this why all of a sudden we have "moderate Moslems" like the one above? The Catholic Church is creating a new religion out of the old archaic and dysfunctional one. Don't you think this is a wonderful idea? Do you think it will work? Well, probably not, seems pretty far fetched, for humans such a reinterpretation is impossible, but for Jesus(whose other name is Allah), well, you tell me!!

Posted by: hal at December 7, 2005 10:58 PM

"I have showed you how it can be done. Instead of reading it and investigating it you choose not too."

I have been reading and investigating nonstop ever since 9/11 and nothing I have read has convinced me that Islam is a religion of peace.

To quote a line from a movie "I would rather make a grevious mistake than surrender my judgement to another", and that includes Mohammed.

Posted by: dms at December 7, 2005 11:03 PM

Realistically reform probably will never occur. Re-interpretation may be impossible, but again a major part of that stems from the fear of being rendered an apostate. Reform does not require the Qur'an being re-written, but looking at it from a different context. The Qur'an is loaded with inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are best resolved looking at from a new approach, non-contextual. The views I outline above are at the absolute margin in contemporary Muslim discourse.

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 11:07 PM

DMS:

I have been reading and investigating nonstop ever since 9/11 and nothing I have read has convinced me that Islam is a religion of peace.

Really? Who are some of the authoritative reformers that you have read? I highly doubt you have.

I am not arguing that you should surrender your judgment or scrutiny. Your scrutiny of ISlam should remain unrelenting. Islam will never reform, unless it is forced to, and is under a microscope. That is why I support the work of JW, Anti-Cair, Faith-Freedom...

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 11:11 PM

The scrutiny imposed by non-Muslims on non-Muslims will eventually force Muslims to re-evaluate their current course. Absent abandoning Islam, which may be preferable, Muslims will be forced to consider the above approaches.

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 11:13 PM

"Really? Who are some of the authoritative reformers that you have read? I highly doubt you have.

I guess you didn't read my post. I said nothing about reading anything by "authoritative reformers" since I do not believe Islam can be reformed.

Posted by: dms at December 7, 2005 11:22 PM

Dear Haidon, unless you can understand how to not get bent out of shape by other people posting on JW, you are not going to be very effective in fighting militant Islam. The entire problem is much bigger than you, I or even JW. But JW is at least an accurate, consistent, and well-researched source of information to expose the deception that threatens us all. I'm glad you have put forth efforts to understand.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks

STARTLING NUMBERS

"It is significant to note that Osama bin Laden views chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons as legitimate," says the report, titled "Pandemics: Avian Flu."

And how many "Muslims" around the globe agree with Osama bin Laden and hold him in high esteem? Percentages are deceiving, and the media loves to use them to spout such things as "Muslim support for bin laden is waning" etc. Let me grab a calculator here,

60% Jordan out of 6 mil = 3.6 mil
51% Pakistan out of 162 mil = 82.6 mil
35% Indonesia out of 241 mil = 84.35 mil
26% Morocco out of 32 mil = 8.32 mil
7% Turkey out of 70 mil = 4.9 mil

total for these 5 countries = 183.77 MILLION people in favor of highly esteeming Osama bin Laden. An understatement at best.

http://pewglobal.org/reports

Posted by: Report at December 7, 2005 11:25 PM

Haidon's approach resembles -- and will have about as much effect as -- those tiny sects that have popped up now and again in history claiming to have the "key" to understanding the "true meaning" of the Bible, or of History, or of the Meaning of Life -- while the vast majority blithely ignores them (and in the case of Islam, continues with its millennial patterns of internecine chaos punctuated by zealous attempts at reviving Mohammed's #1 goal: to conquer the world for Islam).

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 7, 2005 11:31 PM

Haidon
Tell you what. You supply a list of "authoritative reformers" and when I get done reading all the books on Islam and Jihad and related subjects why then I might take a peek at one or two on your list but don't hold your breath cuz I'm not liable to run out of material I have left in the forseeable future. So many books, so littil time.

Posted by: dms at December 7, 2005 11:41 PM

Report:

Fair enough. Fighting the war requires a multifaceted approach, to marginalise true moderates and argue that they have no place in this debate (as some here have implied) is wrong.

Dr Pepper:

I never said I have the absolute concrete answers. Its really quite amusing people like you always argue that so called moderates never really show how they will do so, but when I attempt to provide (an albeit flawed) way forward, you say that I act is if I have the key. I am just expressing a view.

DMS I definitely read and understood your post. Here are a couple of authortative reformers:

Ahmed Suby Mansour
Kassim Ahmed
Farog Foda
Taqiq Hamid
Abdullahi Na'im
Tariq Ramadan (Just kidding)

Posted by: Haidon at December 7, 2005 11:52 PM

Haidon, if you're still there...

If you are sincere - which, for the benefit of the doubt for this post I will not doubt - then you must realize that fundamental changes to the Koran is tinkering with the message of Allah.

Why not look at this in another light?

Instead of attempting to force Islam to modernize, could there be another option? I could ask if you are interested in seeing Islam change only to retain continuity in your own identity... or ask if you are interested in worshipping Allah in ways that are medieval. Or ask if your desire is out of respect and love for God Almighty.

If Allah is willing to overlook attempted changes to the word of His prophet, then would He not be pleased with genuine love and worship of Him as Creator?

My point: it might perhaps be easier to simply find a way to revere God Almighty by leaving the practice of Islam behind. If God is one and Almighty, then do not the Jews and even the Christians, in effect, worship the same God? Is not Islam submission to God? Is not the content of the words of Mohammed geared to the times of 600+AD? Perhaps Allah never intended that His word be spread by the sword for all time, but only to serve a purpose that only He knew?

....

I'll leave the conclusions to you.

Posted by: Mussolini at December 8, 2005 12:12 AM

Thomas,

Haven't 'seen' you around in a while.

Help me out with an issue, please.

Take a look at this link:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/cain.html

I'm interested to know how a literate Muslim sees/overlooks the odd intent of 5:32.

In particular, the use of 'We' (as Allah's message to Mohammad), and why Allah would ordain or decree this to 'the Children of Israel'.

Do they question that?

Posted by: PRCS at December 8, 2005 12:20 AM

Mussolini:

Good points. That is certainly another option which would invariably solve all of our problems. But to aspire to that, is legions more unrealistic than the reformation of Islam. As long as Muslims live in fear of being able to speak, engage in critical thinking about Islam, this will not occur. If you have reform however, and can establish a liberal discourse it will be easier for Muslims to leave Islam (I have no doubt that you will find that many will leave).

There can be parallel campaigns for both reform and "leaving Islam". People like Dr Sina and Ibn Waraq, Ali Hirsi have been staunch advocates for such leavers. And in supporting genuine reformers we must do so in a way that diminishes the harsh scrutiny on Islam.

Thomas

Posted by: Haidon at December 8, 2005 12:25 AM

Haidon,

I respect your fortitude, placing your neck on the line in the Muslim world.

I also respect your contribution to this forum.

But the fundamental question must be this: how do you get the religious leadership of Islam to respect the most important quality of existence - the sanctity of human life?

Posted by: rappa at December 8, 2005 12:29 AM

For the few who have spoken out on the need for Abrogation, my condolences. I know they are there; I read MEMRI.

To say my outlook for them is optimistic would be to lie, and I hate liars.

Perhaps, though, Iraq will serve as that vehicle that promotes an atmosphere of change. Again, my outlook for Iraq to become peaceful enough to serve as fertile ground in the midst of Islam is not optimistic.

But perhaps.

Agreed, conversion out of Islam into a peaceful worship of God Almighty stands less chance than attempted reform. We all know the penalty for leaving Islam. My supposition was for you, personally, due to my lack of optimism for Abrogation in Islam.

You face a hard road, but you won't find opposition here, only suspicion. Our approval, you need not.

Go with God, die with God, and glory to God. Pity those who have not God, for there is no other way.

Posted by: Mussolini at December 8, 2005 12:33 AM

zawahiri makes video statement..again no ben laden ..He's dead folks..bin laden is dead..hopefully crushed beneath earthquake rocks or sumthin..

Posted by: otterfisher at December 8, 2005 12:56 AM

Make that two rare and endangered species in New Zealand. The hapless Kiwi bird, and the migratory Moonbat Muslim.

Thomas, no offense but no matter how you slice and dice a pile of crap, when put back together, it is still a pile of crap.

And that is why Ali Sina only advocates the destruction of Islam nothing else. Which leads me to question your alleged support of his website, Faithfreedom.

PS. Have a nice summer, it's -23C here and I certainly wouldn't mind cruising around Rangitoto Island right about now.

Posted by: William The Crusader at December 8, 2005 12:58 AM

HAIDON! ARE YOU THE ONE WHO POSTED THAT LONG PIECE UP THERE - HAVENT READ MUCH OF IT YET BUT IT SEEMS VERY, VERY GOOD. ARE YOU A MUSLIM? IF SO, A VERY CULTURED AND INTELLIGENT ONE! WHAT DO YOU THINK OF WHAT I POSTED UP THERE? THINK IT IS A POSSIBILITY? APPRICIATE YOUR COGENT AND LONG EFFORT UP THERE AND I CAN USE MORE OF THE SAME AS I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TIME TO LEARN ARABIC WORTH A DAMN. bUT I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ARABIC IN THE KORAN IS VERY GENERIC ARABIC AND TAKEN BY ITSELF, WITHOUT TONS OF ANCIENT TOMES ANALYSING IT FOR CENTURIES, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO READ IT'S PURE ETYMOLOGICAL MEANING AS A MODERATE AND PEACEFUL BOOK. DO YOU THINK I MIGHT BE RIGHT? APPRECIATE, BOOKBURNER..

Posted by: hal at December 8, 2005 1:01 AM

Thomas
Thanks for the list. Good to see you also have a sense of humour. Let me make this quick and easy for you. I see Mohammed as a charismatic, hugely flawed human being who suffered from multiple personality disorders, certainly not a prophet by any stretch of the imagination. Also, it would be interesting to see how far Islam would have spread were it not for the sword and fear and intimidation. Not very far methinks.

Posted by: dms at December 8, 2005 1:08 AM

Mussolini:

Cheers. A colleague of mine that I have mentioned Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour has written an excellent piece on why the death penalty for apostacy is plain wrong. Here is the link if you get the chance:

http://www.islamicpluralism.org/texts/apostasy.htm

William The Crusader:

Bloody hell. Its a balmy 18 (C) degrees here in Wellington, and shoul be up to about 23 tommorrow, my condolences to you in that bastardly cold weather. Being from Buffalo, NY I certainly don't miss the cold.

Hal:

Yes am a Muslim. And have read your post. The Arabic in the Qur'an is actually high level classical Arabic (FOSAH). Many Muslims, even arabs, have a hard time reading it. It would be possible to read it in a moderate way, but again because there are inconsistent messages coming out of it, things get a bit unclear. But I see the merit in your argument.

DMS:

I believe Muhammad was flawed as well. The Qur'an even points out some of his more benign flaws, like ignoring a blind man (but also for being too merciful) within the context of one particular battle.

There are a million other aspects to this debate as well. We all know that man has tampered with the Qur'an as well, we know that some verses were "revealed" to Muhammad which are not in the Qur'an, we also know that the Qur'an was not written down for some time after the PRophet died. Not unlike Sunnah, aspects of the Qur'an as we know it may be corrupted by his successors to help them consolidate their political power (much of the Sunnah is).

Posted by: Haidon at December 8, 2005 2:36 AM

Haidon,

After having read your posts, I believe that (1)you are underestimating the problems in attempting a reconstruction of the Koran in a "good" interpretation. I also believe (2) you are underestimating the problems in attempting to interpret the Koran, in any certain terms, without the support of the Hadith and Sira.

Re (1), here is just a brief sample of the problems you face. Here's your challenge: Find us the "good" interpretation of the adjectives used in the following verses:

Disbelievers/non-Muslims: are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:55, 8:22); (Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of the devil (Satan) and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); liars/they lie (2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (7:179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), false pride and schism (38:2).

Where is the good interpetation of these:

Muslims must _____________ the non-Muslims/disbelievers:

fight/oppose/shun/strive against/regard as the enemy/never help/never befriend/sever family ties with/never compromise with/never obey/never forgive/chastise/curse/be ruthless toward/be stern toward/etc. (not in order) 3:118; 3:28, 3:56; 3:87-88, 4:50, 4:63, 4:101, 4:139-140, 4:144, 5:54, 5:57, 8:65, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52, *28:86, 31:7, 33:48, 45:7-8, 48:28-29, 53:29, 58:5, 58:22, 60:1, 60:4, 60:10, 60:13, 63:6, 66:9, 68:8-9, 76:24, 84:24. Note that the “never help” *(28:86) command means that Muslims’ good works are limited to helping other Muslims or to otherwise pursuing Islam’s interests. 60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever until they believe in Allah only.

4:144 "Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?"

Where is the good in these verses, that say...

Disbelievers who (think they) do good works do so in vain, because they are going to hell anyway (5:5, 18:104-106, also 18:30, 33:19, 47:1, 47:32). Their works are as ashes blown away by the wind; they have no control over what they have earned (14:18).

Re (2), regarding 33:57-62, explain these verses without going to the Hadith or Sira.

33:57 Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.
33:58 And those who malign believing men and believing women undeservedly, they bear the guilt of slander and manifest sin.
33:59 O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
33:60 If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbours in it but a little while.
33:61 Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
33:62 That was the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old; thou wilt not find for the way of Allah aught of power to change.

In other words, justify, or attempt to justify these verses (especially 33:60-61) without using Hadiths.

For that matter, try to justify these verses using the Hadiths.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 8, 2005 4:06 AM

Thomas J. Haidon, President of New Zealand Chapter: Free Muslim ...

... Thomas J. Haidon, President of New Zealand Chapter. ... Converted to Islam at Al-Azhar in Cairo Egypt ... Involved in promoting Muslim-Jewish dialogue at the University ...

freemuslims.org/about/bio.php?id=newzealand

Posted by: dennisw at December 8, 2005 4:45 AM

I'm all for a reformation of Islam; or all Moslems renouncing Islam, even if that means curtains for JW and the possibility of hearing Robert playing the fluegelhorn. (I will take banjo lessons.)

Posted by: islamophobic pride at December 8, 2005 4:50 AM

Haidon,

You said:
“The opponents of Islam will normally quote one or two verses out of context such as “and kill them wherever you find them” (2:191) to prove their conviction that Islam is a religion of hate and terror…”

Before addressing 2:191, consider what the Koran says about disbelievers (see my prev. post) and disbelief. The worst possible sin is disbelief in or denial of Allah (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22). Disbelief or turning away from Allah is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). (for a discussion of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm ).

Here is the verse 2:191 in passage.

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Notes.

Disbelief is aggression, War against Allah. Jihad is a response to that aggression.

Persecution refers to the words, deeds, customs, and institutions of the disbelievers which come into conflict with Islam. Anything that goes against Islam, whether violent or non-violent, is persecution. Persecution is the worst crime, worse than killing a believing Muslim jihadist (i.e., the best person).

The wrong-doers are disbelievers, who are guilty of the worst crime. Let there be no hostility except against those who persist in their disbelief (i.e., refuse to convert, or refuse to pay the jizya). Sounds consistent with Islamic Holy War policy.

Apologists appear to be under the illusion, or at least think that they can pass off the illusion, that terms like aggression, persecution, wrong-doers, etc., all have modern definitions, like those one might come across in Amnesty International or U.N. publication. The Koran's definitions are different than modern definitions of secular western democracies.

You said:
“The problem is that the ignorant amongst the Muslims, as well as their self-appointed leaders, will fall into these sort of traps and even agree that they are ‘commanded’ to kill all Jews and Christians…”

Actually, 9:29, in context, says that Muslims should kill, subjugate, or convert the Jews and Christians.

You said
“…or that they are ‘commanded’ to beat women who are disobedient…”

Well, yes, it does say that, and yes, it is a divine command.

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Multiple translations say beat, or scourge, or hit. Also note, if a man merely “fears rebellion.” If you reject 4:34, Haidon, just say so.

You said
“…or that they are ‘commanded’ to amputate the hands of thieves, etc…”

They are; they are commanded (this is the Koran, not Mohammad’s Book of Maybe). 5:33 deals with a wide variety of sins/crimes, violent or non-violent, words or deeds, and among them is highway robbery.

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive
after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands
and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their
degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom…

And 5:38 deals with theft specifically.

5:38 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Note that the forgiveness and mercy for those who repent (mentioned in 5:39) is limited to Muslims who repent. Allah does not forgive the non-Muslims/disbelievers, and neither should Muslims. Muslims must act hard against the disbelievers and only be merciful among themselves (i.e., among Muslims). Non-Muslims' only hope of forgiveness and mercy is to convert to Islam.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 8, 2005 6:25 AM

Moderation within islam?

That sounds like an oxymoron.

Haidon, just leave it. Islam is unredeemable. Your efforts are in vain.

Posted by: rocky at December 8, 2005 7:42 AM

I don't fancy our chances of converting Haidon.
Islamists seem determined to apologize for, condone or actively follow Islamic jihad.
Who'd have thought Haidon could write so much about absolute rubbish!

Muslims will not stop until they ensure Islam's complete destruction.

One day the rest of the world will say "ENOUGH!".
Until then Islam will continue in it's arrogance and stupidity to tempt fate.

Genesis 16:12,
He will be like a wild donkey among men. His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him. He will live opposite all of his brothers."

Posted by: Mike_W at December 8, 2005 9:03 AM

Surely there is a point at which trying, trying, trying to fix a structure, physical or mental, a building or a belief, something that has so much wrong with it, and so much of it would have to be torn down, even to attempt to make it a decent building or a decent belief, that one who might originally have undertaken the enterprise, hoping manfully that yes, it could be done, and I'm the man to help do it, by rolling up my sleeves or opening my thoughts, and if others come to scoff at the building site, I will let them scoff and keep at it, and at it, almost as if to prove to them that it can, that it can, that it can be done, and that they should not scoff but watch, or even help out, and because my intentions are pure, naturally I will in the end succeed, because purity of heart is everything.

But it isn't. And there really is a rundown building, that is a menace to the neighborhood, whether it remains standing, or comes toppling down. And the best way to deal with it is to dismantle it, bit by grim bit. Or, failing that, not to waste precious resources trying to rebuild it, but to stay safely away from it, and let it fall down by itself, on top of itself, harming only itself.

I think there's an extended metaphor somewhere in there.

Posted by: Hugh at December 8, 2005 9:09 AM

An interesting thread. Two comments:

Comment No. 1 to Haidon:

Your comments are interesting and on the face of it encouraging from the Westerner's point of view. But where do your comments sit within the accepted schools of Islam? It seems that your comments are in large part a matter of your own interpretation. If so, doesn't this constitute a reopening of personal interpretation, ijtihad, which was officially closed hundreds of years ago? And if you are encountering problems within your own community in the West (New Zealand was it?), how long do you reckon it will be before your missionary efforts are successful in dar al Islam proper? And of course I am assuming that your intention is to carry the word there as well.

Comment No. 2, in response to "The Muslim nation is facing great challenges and enormous dangers targeting its cultural foundations and religious creeds," Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said Tuesday.

These words emphasize once again the Muslim sense of nationhood. Muslims living in the West with Western citizenship are nevertheless crypto dual nationals. This political side of Islam is being used as a sword at the throats of liberal democracy. But is can be a two-edged sword. Islam should be treated as a foreign political party and legally constrained accordingly.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 8, 2005 9:44 AM

Haidon, our friend, has got himself caught up in a problem of sunk costs. Having invested so much in fixing the unfixable and dangerous structure which Hugh describes, he can't just leave it. What can he do with all that knowledge of the Islamic doctrines, which no doubt took years to acquire? Well, Ibn Warraq has put his knowledge of Islam to very productive use, to the betterment of all humanity. Haidon's approach may make him media-friendly (for now), but unfortunately it must be said that it confuses the public at a time when clarity is needed. Warraq's full repudiation will have a more significant and more positive impact.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 8, 2005 9:54 AM

William the Crusader: "Thomas, no offense but no matter how you slice and dice a pile of crap, when put back together, it is still a pile of crap."

My sentiments exactly.

No offense Thomas, you try harder than most, but like the other Prophet said, 'You cant get good fruit out of a bad tree'.
Your intentions may be good, but like the same Prophet said, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'...I think you should apostate yourself for real and become a transendentalist.
You dont loose the 'One God' in the process, but you do rise out of the pile of crap William mentioned. Good luck...otherwise any talk of the ROP and impossible reforms is just so much blue smoke and mirrors, word magic, word trickery.
Better to just transend and be one with God...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 8, 2005 10:52 AM

Hidion,

Ai-salama-laikum,

We Ahamadis have been trying to get a softer side of Islam going for near enough 200 years...with some success.

The success side of it has been that we have 10 million followers.

The failure of it has been that we have not managed to convince a single sunni or shite of the softer side of Islam. ....YOU won't either.....how long have you got?

Posted by: Naseem at December 8, 2005 11:47 AM

Thomas
I do not,atpresent,belong to any"organized"religion,but if I were to join one again,it would be a real religion under a benevolent god, not the one you pray to. Your so called religion scares me to death and so do it's adherents.

Posted by: dms at December 8, 2005 11:49 AM

Thomas,

I invite you to go back through this thread and read some of things you wrote, some don’t exactly put Islam in a positive light. There are quite a few in fact. I’m bewildered that you cling to your futile hope that Islam can be better than it is, that it is worth saving. You don’t deserve it, your family doesn’t deserve it, no decent human being deserves it. Leave Islam Thomas. Lay down your spiritual burden and walk in the light.

Posted by: butterfly at December 8, 2005 2:46 PM

Most apt: "So please spare me."

Believing that he is under no threat from the infidel, he makes this hollow plea politely and sounding earnest.

Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. If he is to be believed, his "moderation" isn't well received among his Muslim brethren. In fact, if he is to be believed, by his own admission his brethren consider his "moderate" version of Islam to be heretical -- they can't even allow him to finish his tubwa or whatever the preposterous Arabic term is for whatever he was doing... Am I sad? No. No sympathy here -- sorry!

Sounds like a messed up religion you're believing in -- with all the rejection and fatwas -- what are we supposed to be impressed with your "heroics" or stupefied by your stupidity for continuing to adhere? But why is it imcumbent on me to become involved in your dog fight with your immoderate brethren. This is the kind of over playing of hands we have witnessed so far from Muslims in our midst. They continue to trust in the notion that we will continue patiently to tolerate their presence in our midst while they harbor seditionists and terrorists in their bosom.

I don't really want to address you, Oh Muslim, but if you are to be believed in anything you say, you appear to live in a community of typically vicious rageful Muslims. So I ask you: Have you EVER turned in or reported any of your co-religionists for supporting terror or promulgating Islamic fascism?

What's that you say? NO?!? What a surprise!

(sarc on :o)

I thought so, Oh Muslim, ye honeyed friend of the West and promoter of "Moderate Islam" ! Thanks be unto ye!

(sarc off :-(

Liar! Hypocrite!

Posted by: jsla at December 8, 2005 3:01 PM

Haidon! Thanks for the attention and your kind comment. Do you suppose that someone might commission a thoroughly modern translation of the Koran with up to date scholarship based on an etymological rigorous examination of that classical Arabic - sell it to all people of all languages as the only sure way to really understand a magnificent language spoken more that a thousand years ago and
frozen in form in order to keep the Koran inviolable until this day when it would be
possible to unfreeze the true and deeper meanings to heal the modern world with
truly modern scholarship. Tell me how I can go about this project - you are
probably the only one in the universe who can tell me how I can go about
implementing what I imagine is the Pope's sereat plan. All love, Hal [bookburne

Posted by: hal at December 8, 2005 3:02 PM

Thick, like flies -- hmm?

Posted by: jsla at December 8, 2005 3:28 PM

Haidon,

Regarding your switching of words, by which you removed the phrase "cut of their hands" and replaced it with "cut from their resources" in 5:38.

You said,
“The second observation is that (yad) which is translated as 'hand' can also mean 'resource' (38:45).”
"The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut from their resources as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Almighty, Wise." (5:38)

The word (or synonym of) "resource" does not appear in 38:45, according to these translations.

[Shakir 38:45] And remember Our servants Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub, men of power and insight.
[Yusufali 38:45] And commemorate Our Servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, possessors of Power and Vision.
[Pickthal 38:45] And make mention of Our bondmen, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, men of parts and vision.

In any case, even if some variation did provide "resource," it doesn't appear in 5:38, nor 5:33, both of which refer to dismemberment of hand (or foot) as a criminal punishment. BTW, is there an Arabic synonym whereby "foot" (5:33)translates as "resource" too? Talk about 'sleight of hand'!

You could as easily chop up all the words of the Koran, mix them up randomly, and then put them together in sentences that roughly signify modern western democratic values.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 8, 2005 4:57 PM

Hugh:

What you are seeking, by itself is not achievable. Moderate reform will create a liberal atmosphere in which Muslims will be able to leave freely without fear. Both avenues must be pursued.

JLSA:

You ask:

Have you EVER turned in or reported any of your co-religionists for supporting terror or promulgating Islamic fascism?

Yes. On several ocassions, and I have also stood up to them in the mosque(s), to my own peril. I have done so in the United States and New Zealand (where Saudi officials financing our mosques here justified terror against Israelis and all infidels)

Not all of us hide behind a computer you know, some of us act on our words. In The Al-Shaheed Mosque in Omdurman in Khartoum, I interputed a Khutbah in 2003, because the sheikh was glorifying the attacks of 11 September and attacks in Israel.

I have also lobbied and advised the NZ government on strengthening its counter-terror framework to include proscreibing organisations who advocate and glorify terrorism.

I read JW consistently and have yet to recall you ever making a scholarly contribution. In fact your comments are usually vile, and are the sort that get Robert in trouble. You have yet to really challenge anything That has been written in this thread.

Archimedes

First of all, I did not write those articles, but merely brought them to the attention of JW. Nor did I say they were the authoritative answers. I think they are somewhat flawed as well, but they do provide a positive development. Read Sheikh Ahmed Suby Mansour for a bit more scholarly approach.You raise some points however that any effective moderate reformation must address.

Hal:

I'll have to have a think about that one mate.

Posted by: Haidon at December 8, 2005 6:03 PM

I'm always so glad to see the outpouring of concern by Muslim posters at this site. They are the first to promise that it's only out of gentle concern for "Robert" that they carry on so -- usually fatuously pasting up quotes from the Koran and diverting the threads to innumerable Islamic cesspools online.

Dearest Haidon: I don't need to wade into the sewage of Islamic Jurisprudence, or wander down the gore strewn paths of Islam's revolting history, or dally with you for one moment discussing the heuristics of hermeneutics regarding your preposterous feral religion!

As I stated above -- if you are to be believed, and I have serious doubts since you are a Muslim, then your time should be solely focused on addressing the depravity of your sad, broken religion. WHY ARE YOU HERE? I see nothing of worth in your posts.

Posted by: jsla at December 8, 2005 8:15 PM

JLSA:

This is a free forum where anyone can speak... That is why I am here. I just find it necessary from time to time, to try and impart a bit of knowledge. To say that a Muslim perspective in this debate is irrelevant is laughable.

The worth of my posts is to illustrate that while the scrutiny of Islam should be relenting, reformist efforts should not be quickly dismissed.

As far as you doubting whether I am Muslim... I don't know what to tell you pal.

Posted by: Haidon at December 8, 2005 8:29 PM

Idiots like you (who use insults, not logic or reasoning to back their arguments) bring this debate into disrepute. Its much easier for you and others like you to pat each other on the back, and claim how evil Islam is, 500 times a day. Moderate Muslims have a stake in this debate, and that is why I am here. If you don't like it, ask Robert to remove my login.

Posted by: Haidon at December 8, 2005 8:31 PM

Yes, by all means my good hearted friend. This affection I have for you evidently
can be intuited by others, even under the internet - as you see above there, "Thick,
like flies -- hmm?
Posted by: jsla at December 8, 2005 03:28 PM" But, I have a right as I am a
Crusader, where the Franciscans failed, perhaps the Dominican third order will
succeed. But how much danger are you really in? Can you have a Real Crusader for
your friend? After all, I've heard the message of Allah and it only filled me with
disgust until the Pope kissed it with the lips of Peter. God forbid that sacrifice
should be wasted. I'll wager that after kissing it he went home in shock and
immediately prayed, "God! Why did you make me do it! Or, is this senility? No,
God made him do it. You call God Allah, that same God I call Jesus. But, the Pope
interrupted his childhood in order to become a servant for us, therefore, there are
many things in this world he will find confusing. But, Haidon, I think you will find
that my God is your God. You were wonderful enough to give us links into your own
soul, so I give you, since we are already as thick as flies, a link to my soul, the soul
of a Crusader no different than king Richard (may the world know her was a son of
God also). I wrote an E book, made it easy to read and not boring at all and free
with no advertisements - learn all about me by examining the fruit of my rather
simple thought processes, follow this link http://www.godmodern.com/ I promise
you will not be bored beloved infidel xoxoxoxo

Posted by: hal at December 8, 2005 8:37 PM

from above: "Idiots like you (who use insults, not logic or reasoning to back their arguments) ..."

It is Perfect! Thank you!

Posted by: jsla at December 8, 2005 8:42 PM

I reiterate:

"diverting the threads to innumerable Islamic cesspools" -- you and all Muslim posters are guilty of this...

Foisting upon us "the sewage of Islamic Jurisprudence" -- you and all Muslim posters are guilty of this...

Muslim crimes now force us collectively down the "gore strewn paths of Islam's revolting history" -- this is YOUR religion -- this is YOUR history -- and it is the current trajectory of your filth stained "preposterous feral religion".

Sorry if it's true, slave of Allah. Sorry if you don't like hearing it.